This paper examines how the Swedish nationalistic political party Sverigedemokraterna communicates regarding the crisis they experienced when the Swedish newspaper Expressen published a few video clips of three, in that time, highly important party members that got in an argument after a late night of drinking. Two of the party members were at the time of the publication the members of the Swedish parliament and all of them had important senior positions in the party. In the argument one of the party members used abusive, offensive, sexist and racist language while all acted threatening and even armed themselves with iron bars from a nearby construction site.The aim of this paper is to examine how the party Sverigedemokraterna conducts their crisis communication, if they apologies and the fashion of the apology. A press conference with the party leader and the most active user of abusive language and also an interview with the second member of parliament who is involved in the argument are studied. The rhetorical arena is used to describe and pinpoint the most important stakeholders in the crisis. Hearits structure “from wrongdoing to absolution” is used to describe the crisis and it’s context. Benoits apologiastrategies and Hearits requirements for an ethical apologia are used to describe and assess the crisis communication and apologia at the press conference and interview.The paper concludes that the individuals who communicate the apologia use different strategies. The party leaders focus is towards the future and corrective actions while claiming not to have all the necessary information. The other two party members portray themselves as victims. One of them apologizes while the other only acknowledges wrongdoing without apologizing. They all acknowledge wrongdoing.